UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 22

Re: Abductions & Ufology

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:55:33 -0500
Archived: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:23:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology


>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs.nul>
>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:49:52 -0700
>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates.nul>
>Subject: Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

>>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs.nul>
>>>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

>>>I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
>>>not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
>>>scenario.

>>>Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
>>>scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
>>>Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
>>>of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
>>>completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

>>>I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
>>>many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
>>>that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
>>>expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
>>>far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
>>>take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
>>>bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
>>>close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
>>>and taken into the UFO.

>>>Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
>>>Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
>>>framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
>>>the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

>>>Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
>>>I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
>>>research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
>>>a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
>>>to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
>>>good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
>>>us to think and rethink.

>>>Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.

>>Groan... Et tu Wendy? Et tu?

><snip>

>Yeah, I'm afraid so, John. It is not a reflection on you nor
>other abductees. Rather, it is a reflection of this old
>researcher who has been around the block more times than I care
>to count (or remember).

>Let's just say I'm maintaining legitimate skepticism regarding
>the abduction scenario within Ufology from the position that
>very little evidence, circumstantial or empirical, shows that
>the alien abduction scene is as large as proclaimed or as urgent
>as proclaimed. I just feel that the alien abduction scenario it
>is not the center of Ufological (crypto-aeronautics) research.
>It is certainly a bona fide area of research, but not that which
>Ufology is derived, nor driven.

>However, from a rational standpoint, I accept that some abductee
>cases are legitimate, such as yours and deserves serious study
>and research. I believe you had such an experience. You have,
>with your acumen and common sense, gave me absolutely no reason
>to doubt you or that your experience was real to you. But, like
>Jan, I don't know what to do at this point or where to take the
>alien abduction scenario as far as research.

>Having almost 50 years in this field I have some core beliefs.
>First and foremost is that the UFO phenomena is real and
>presents a challenge to human understanding. That the phenomena
>has always been in flux and that the phenomena is a valid
>scientific endeavor. But, there is absolutely no evidence that
>proves UFOs are extraterrestrial, interdimensional, etc. at this
>moment in time. To believe otherwise is to default on keeping an
>open mind in the course of study and research.

>At the present time the abduction scenario is much like the old
>Contactee position of the 1950s. Yet, different in many
>respects. It is hard to get a handle on what the abduction
>scenario signals in many aspects as it applies to Ufology in the
>purest sense.

>I don't dismiss the alien abduction scenario outright. I find it
>a challenge, interesting and disturbing in its complexity.
>However, beyond that I just won't take the next step to believe
>blindly many of the claims being made as to hybidization,
>intergalactic war between Raelians and the like. I'm being
>pragmatic here, John. I will not make leaps to reach a
>conclusion. I certainly speculate, as shown in my research, but
>that speculation is always arrived at through thorough
>documentation that leads credence to such speculation.


Hi Wendy, Jan, Jim Speiser, All,

Oh man, (or 'woman' as the case may be) I can't begin to tell
you how disappointing and disheartening it is for me to hear
you all talking this way. I respect it and I can even understand
'why' you all think/feel this way about the abduction reports.

You three in particular, Jan, Wendy, Jim, all represent (to me)
among the 'best' there is in ufology. You are all clear, honest
thinkers who offer a solid approach to the subject. (UFOs) It
just takes all the wind out of my sails to watch you
collectively throwing your hands up in the air in frustration
over the abduction material.

That means: all the usual suspects, Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs get to
keep center stage when it comes to actively investigating
cases/reports of UFO abduction. That bothers me tremendously.
And not because there is anything inherently wrong with any of
them. But because we'll never get to see if anyone else can
confirm, deny or duplicate their results or assessment of the
phenomenon.

We already know what they think.

I was waiting and hoping for some 'fresh blood' to enter the
fray. To bring better methodology and a less 'carved in stone'
mind-set to the problem than we get from Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs
et al.

A 'monopoly' like that, in any field of investigation, almost
insures that 'dogma' will rear its ugly little head. It's what
we have now. There's the 'Hopkins camp' the 'Mack camp' etc.
with little input from anybody else in the field. There is no
one else who shares an equal foothold in the public arena with
them who is challenging them or putting their findings to the
test.

As friendly as they are with each other, I doubt we'll ever get
to see the result of their 'combined' and catalogued database.
There hasn't been a challenge put to them strong enough to
motivate them to pool their data and evidence for consideration
by the larger research community. In other words, as things
stand right now, there is no real 'accountability' being
demanded by anyone of them to substantiate their assertions.
They don't have to answer to anybody.

It's a sweet deal. They can pursue their "research" free from
any accountability at all. They can continue to write and
publish books independently knowing that they'll never have to
'put up' the goods (collectively) for independent analysis.
That's the kind of work that needs to be performed. And
yesterday!

Example:

With the glaring exception of Dr. Mack, the other two claim to
have physical evidence. (And, if Dr.mack is the only one among
them who has not found/gathered any physical evidence, what does
_that_ say?) Neither one has offered up this physical evidence
for 'open' (academic) empirical analysis. I'm not trying to
imply that they don't have 'physical evidence' only that nobody
is really sure what it all consists of and whether it is what
they claim it is; evidence of ET.

You guys are crying that you have nothing tangible to
investigate. They claim they have 'tangibles.' Why not start
there?

The only hope that their strangle-hold on the research will
loosen is with independent researchers like yourselves. Serious,
thoughtful people who can bring a sober mind-set and fresh set
of eyes to a phenomenon that has been dominated by a 'few'
individuals. Too few. We all need to see the results of
independent investigative and analysis efforts on the material
that the 'abductionologists' claim they are in possession of.

But alas, all my hopes are dashed. When a competent, reputable
bunch such as yourselves wash your hands of the abduction cases,
it tells me that the Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs 'status quo' will
continue to dominate at least for the foreseeable future.

No hope for new research or input. No hope for alternative
methodology. Just more of the same, more 'books' about this case
or that, more lectures, more TV shows, for many more years to
come. And nothing more. Nothing 'new' anyway.

It depresses me. Makes me feel like packing my bindle stick and
hitting the rails. What's it all for if not to get people of
your experience and caliber involved? To broaden the research
effort. To 'maybe' one day, getting some practical help and
answers for the witnesses/victims.

Damn, damn, damn. I can't begin to tell you how sad and
frustrated it makes me feel to hear you guys talking this way.


Regards to All,

John


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com